Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Date: 2006-06-22 17:48:06
Message-ID: 1150998486.745.150.camel@home
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:42 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 6/22/06, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> wrote:
> > If you INSERT into multiple partitions (by time -- say one per minute)
> > and TRUNCATE periodically (30 minute old partitions for 30 minute
> > expiry) it works much better. Expiring the session is quite fast as well
> > since they'll go away with the truncate.
>
> Forgive me if this sounds rude because I'm not meaning it as such, but
> this suggestion sounds like a MySQL-ish hack. No doubt it would work,
> but should an application-writer have to incur the cost of writing
> something different because the database can't handle it? I remember
> having to write subselect code in PHP because MySQL couldn't do it...
> not what I would call a *solution* by any mean.

Application writer doesn't need to do anything. That's what rules,
views, etc. are for.

The only snag is that PostgreSQL doesn't 'eliminate' a partition by
itself, so the truncate is a manual requirement.

--

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-22 17:48:13 Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2006-06-22 17:42:47 Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC